Aberration of a Particle: Solving for Angle and Velocity in Relativistic Frames

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the angle of a particle's trajectory in different relativistic frames. The angle θ in frame S is expressed in terms of the angle θ' in frame S' and the relative speed parameter β. The participants clarify that the y-component of velocity is frame-dependent, which is crucial for applying Lorentz transformations correctly. There is confusion about whether to use the relativistic velocity addition formula, but it is ultimately resolved by recognizing the role of the Lorentz transformation in determining the y-component of velocity. The conversation concludes with a better understanding of how to derive the angle using these transformations.
Ken Miller
Messages
26
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



A particle has speed u‘ in the S’ frame, its track making an angle ## \theta’ ## with the x’ axis. The particle is viewed by an observer in frame S, the two frames having a relative speed parameter ## \beta ##.

(a) Show that the angle ## \theta ## made by the track of the particle with the x-axis is given by

$$ \tan \theta = \frac {u’ \sin\theta’} { \gamma \{u’ \cos\theta’ + \beta c\} } $$

(b) Show that this reduces to the standard aberration formula $$ \tan \theta = \frac {\sin \theta’ \sqrt{1-\beta^2} } {\cos \theta’ + \beta} $$ if the “particle” is a light pulse, so that ## u’ = c##.

Homework Equations


Given in problem statement

The Attempt at a Solution



Solving (b) is easy. But (a) is a mystery to me. I think I see how the authors get there, but it seems too simple. I can get there if I argue as follows:

I believe the authors mean that the relative movement of the two frames is along the common x-x’ axis, though they aren’t explicit. In that case the y-component of velocity is the same as the y’-component of velocity; i.e. ## u_y = u’_y = u’ \sin \theta’.## Also the x-component of velocity is some combination of the relative velocity of the frames (## \beta c##) and the x’-component of velocity (## u’ \cos \theta’##); here is seems clear that the authors just added ## u’ \cos \theta’## and ## \beta c## and expanded by multiplying by ##\gamma##. But I am puzzled as to why that is the right thing to do. After all, why shouldn’t the two velocities be added using the relativistic velocity-addition formula: $$ u_x = \frac {u’_x \cos \theta’ + \beta c} {1+ \frac {u’ \cos \theta’ \beta c} {c^2} }? $$ Or am I misunderstanding completely what they have done to get (a)?

I also considered trying to derive (a) in the same way the authors derived (b). But they did that assuming a light wave and making use of the fact that that ## \lambda f = \lambda’ f’ = c.## But in (a), we have particle motion, not wave propagation (we haven’t gotten to quantum mechanics yet), so it seems to me that I cannot treat this as a propagating wave.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ken Miller said:
In that case the y-component of velocity is the same as the y’-component of velocity; i.e. uy=u′y=u′sinθ′
This is incorrect. The y-component is frame dependent.

Do you know the 4-vector formalism? Otherwise you will have to use the Lorentz transformations.
 
  • Like
Likes Ken Miller
Oh...as soon as I saw your statement that the y-component is frame dependent, I realized that this is much easier than I thought. Anyway, I'm only vaguely familiar with 4-vectors, but I think I think I see how this can be done with Lorentz transformations. So, I think that part of where I was going wrong was in thinking that the ## \gamma ## in the solution was connected with the x-component of velocity (simply because I saw it in the denominator). Instead it's connected with the y-component, right? That is, by using the Lorentz transformation on ## \frac {\delta y} {\delta t}, ## you get $$ u_y = \frac {u'_y \sqrt{1-\beta^2} } {1+\frac{\beta c u'_x} {c^2}},$$ I believe. And I believe that I am correct about the x-component in my Attempt at Solution (above). Then $$ \tan \theta = \frac {u_y} {u_x}, which yields the answer. Am I understanding now?
P.S. And thank you for your assistance. You folks are great!
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top